TUANZ blog post of the day says "Impound Reynold's Passport", and Ernie asks the government to retain Paul Reynold's in the country.

IANAL, but aside from the fact that no legitimate government would ever keep a foreign citizen's passport with no legal grounds and a judicial order issued on the breach of some law, the headline is sensationalist at best.But then Ernie continues "Reynolds' handling of the crisis this week has been magnificent. He's fronted this issue at every step. He's been direct and honest. He's shown very genuine empathy in talking about the inconvenience, distress and cost the issues have imposed on customers. He hasn't ducked the questions - he's answered, fully and from the heart, every time."
Yes, I agree with that sentence. But that headline asking the government to retain someone in the country - the equivalent of arresting someone - without legal proceedings?

Seriously? As I said, a sensationalist headline. When I read it on my RSS reader I thought "surely not"?  I understand it's more of a "he's doing a good job, keep him here" and not a "XT is fubar, keep him here"...

[UPDATED to reflect the meaning of the actual article, not the headline only]